To commemorate the 25th anniversary of Les Miserables, Laurence Connor and James Powell restaged the show, and it's this production that's currently on tour. (Amusingly enough, both the new and original productions were playing the West End at the same time. I admit that it'd be kind of cool to see one at a matinee and the other in the evening. I'm not sure if one has closed at this point.) It was this production that I saw Tuesday night.
In case anybody doesn't want to know the details of the new production, I'll keep discussion of that to the end of the entry, and let you know when I'll start on it. However, I pretty much assume everyone knows the story itself. (People die?)
Lawrence Clayton's Valjean didn't blow me away. At all. I don't know if it was an off night, or he's getting the plague that has struck pretty much everyone this winter, or what, but his voice just seemed very weak.
My only other criticism of the cast was would be Chasten Harmon's Eponine. Don't get me wrong--she has a GREAT voice. But hers is a mature voice, and if there's one thing Eponine isn't, it's mature. She just sounded too adult to be this girl suffering through unrequited love. It's not that 30-year-olds DON'T deal with unrequited feelings, it's just that it's expressed completely differently. "On My Own" is the best song EVER...if you're 16. At 32, it makes me cringe. Plus, a lot of the time, it didn't seem like Harmon was that into the role; it was like she was going through the motions, not feeling anything. Sad. Felicia Curry, you remain the best Eponine!
I'm not sure whether I can say anything about Jeremy Hays's performance Enjolras. Here's the thing--his hair is CRAZY. I spent a LOT of time being very distracted by it. I'm sure he sang as well, but HAIR. I do have to give kudos to Joseph Spieldenner's Grantaire--young! cute!--and Justin Scott Brown's Marius. Sounded good, acted well. No Michael Ball, of course.
OK, the new production.
The quotes I've read from the creative team talk about how it's completely different--new orchestration, new direction, new costumes. Well...some new costumes. Javert, Enjolras, Valjean, Fantine...all in the same outfits you're used to seeing. And some new staging. But some old staging. At times it seemed like a totally new production; sometimes it seemed like the same production, with a different backdrop (Fantine enters from stage left, not stage right! Totally new!).
Speaking of, I LOVE the backdrops. I had never noticed, but the old production really didn't have any backgrounds. The designer used some of Victor Hugo's own paintings to make the backdrops and it works fabulously.
However, I don't know about the beginning. Instead of a quarry, the show starts on a prison ship. Official descriptions describe Valjean as a "slave" on the ship. The issue here is that Lawrence Clayton is black. And Javert wandered around carrying chains. The whole thing made me a bit uncomfortable.
Very well done at the beginning was "Les Miserables" being shown on the scrim just after the prologue, as Valjean tears up his ticket of leave. It really shows that that is a prologue; now the real story can begin. I literally got chills.
The whole show was a rougher production than the old. Not rough in the sense of unpolished; rough in the sense of being more violent and sexual than I'm used to. Valjean was looking for a fight before he meets the Bishop of Digne. The students attacked Grantaire during his verse of "Drink With Me." There's a prostitute giving a guy oral during "Lovely Ladies" and a couple having sex--in a few positions, no less--during "Master of the House." I felt for the mother of the two teens sitting next to me.
The show works quite well without the revolving stage. There are more large set pieces that are used to great effect. The only time I really felt the absence of the revolve was during the barricade scenes. That's the one area that I'm really conflicted on; I still don't know how well it works.
Because you can only see one side of the barricade, you only hear Gavroche's death. In some ways, this works; it's how most of the men on the barricade experienced it, and it allows the audience to immediately see their reactions (Grantaire! Love!). However, it loses some of its impact. Similarly, the deaths are done a bit differently; each student gets what I call the "death light"--that bright, pure white light used when someone dies. However, there's so much smoke that it's hard to tell who was who. Enjolras didn't grab the red flag over his head...but he was waving it, which made me wonder whether the flag was just stuck. I kind of hope so. He died, and then, instead of seeing Grantaire run up as I was used to (maybe he did? Like I said, lots of smoke), each student dies in his or her turn. (With some help from explosions, and kudos to those, because it worked very well.)
(It just hit me that this is kind of ironic, that Enjolras and Grantaire are generally the first two to die; in the book, they're literally the last two.)
The lack of a revolve, though, means that things need to move faster. In that instrumental after everyone dies, you get to spend some time seeing the students laying there, the barricade turns, and then there's Enjolras draped over his flag and Gavroche on the ground. This gives time for the barricade to clear and move on. Without the revolve, though, it felt a bit rushed, getting Valjean and Marius into the sewer, the barricade set going off stage, and then Javert running across a cart with Enjolras and Gavroche.
Admittedly, that was kind of a great moment, mostly because of how awesome Andrew Varela's Javert is. I was quite literally in the last row of the theater, but his pause as he stared at Enjolras and Gavroche conveyed everything it needed to. Even so, it lacked the emotional impact of seeing them on the barricade. So I don't know.
I also enjoyed the tweaked "Empty Chairs" and I really appreciated them changing one of the lines on the barricades. Instead of "Everybody stay awake, we must be ready for the fight, for the final fight. Let no one sleep tonight" followed immediately by "Marius, rest"--which has bothered me for YEARS--they changed it. YAY! I don't remember the new lyrics, but I was just glad to hear them.
It's still Les Mis and I still found myself with tears streaming down my cheeks at the end of the show. There's a lot to discuss here--obviously, brevity is NOT my strong point on this topic--but the soul of the show remains firmly in place.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Too much in love (with Joe) to care
The way people talk about Sunset Blvd, you'd think it was the story of Norma Desmond. After all, she's the one with the big songs ("With One Look," "As If We Never Said Goodbye," "New Ways to Dream"), the role played by big names (Patti LuPone, Glenn Close, Elaine Paige, Betty Buckley), the final curtain call.
The thing is, She's not the most interesting character in the show. Not by far.
The show should belong to Joe Gillis. It's his story--the story of the down-on-his-luck Hollywood writer who winds up being the kept man of an aging silent movie star.
It's an easier role to play--an attractive guy making a lot of snide comments ("Did you say you were a writer?" "That's what it says on my guild card."). But because of those two elements, I'm totally in love with him. Playing Norma requires a delicate balance--there's a mix of vulnerability and manipulation that could easily descend into camp--but for my money, the most fascinating scene of the show is the climactic scene between Joe and Betty Schaefer. That scene belongs to Joe; it's both his downfall and his redemption, and I could listen to that track over and over. The other great scene? Joe's decision at the end of Act I.
I can see Norma being an interesting character to play, but ultimately, I'm really not that interested in her. Which is an issue when you're investing money to see Sunset Blvd., as I did when I saw the Signature production the other night.
I can't complain about the production itself; the cast, the set, the orchestra (20 pieces!) were all fantastic. D.B. Bonds more than made me swoon as Joe ("She read DeMille's horoscope; she read mine..." "Did she read the script?"), Florence Lacey was a better Norma than Glenn Close, whom I saw back on Broadway in 1995. The only casting issue I might have would be that Bonds and Susan Derry, who plays Betty Schaefer, appear too close in age, making his treatment of her seem somewhat odd ("You remind me of me long ago..." "Stop it, you're making me feel old"). (For reference, in the film, William Holden was 32 at time of release; Nancy Olson was 22. And you could see it.)
Bonds, by and large, is a fantastic Joe. The two scenes I mentioned were fabulous; it was subtle, but you can see him make a decision and go for it...and then see his ambivalence about what he's done. For each show I see, I usually have a few moments burned into my memory, and those are it for this show.
I put Norma in the same category as Fantine in Les Mis (though, again, I will admit that it is a complicated role that Lacey pulls off very well!)--necessary, but not particularly interesting to me.
Of course, there are others who feel differently. And by "others," I mean "most people" because God knows the reviews of this show focus on her and are all, "And yeah, Bonds and Ed Dixon [Max von Mayerling] are good, too."
And then there's the woman I sat next to. When this show closes February 13, she will have seen it eight times. God knows that I shouldn't judge; there are plenty of shows that I want to see over and over--I just don't have the means. (This woman is a volunteer, so she's only paying for four of those tickets.) But this show isn't one of them. I'm going back Saturday to usher, but really, there isn't the emotional core to this show that makes me want to come back time and again. I admit that I really wanted to see it more out of curiosity for how Signature would stage than out of a fondness for the music (though I certainly was obsessed in the day; I own the Broadway and London cast recordings). And, of course, Signature didn't disappoint.
But not one of my favorites. You know what someone around here needs to stage? Evita. Get on it, DC theaters.
The thing is, She's not the most interesting character in the show. Not by far.
The show should belong to Joe Gillis. It's his story--the story of the down-on-his-luck Hollywood writer who winds up being the kept man of an aging silent movie star.
It's an easier role to play--an attractive guy making a lot of snide comments ("Did you say you were a writer?" "That's what it says on my guild card."). But because of those two elements, I'm totally in love with him. Playing Norma requires a delicate balance--there's a mix of vulnerability and manipulation that could easily descend into camp--but for my money, the most fascinating scene of the show is the climactic scene between Joe and Betty Schaefer. That scene belongs to Joe; it's both his downfall and his redemption, and I could listen to that track over and over. The other great scene? Joe's decision at the end of Act I.
I can see Norma being an interesting character to play, but ultimately, I'm really not that interested in her. Which is an issue when you're investing money to see Sunset Blvd., as I did when I saw the Signature production the other night.
I can't complain about the production itself; the cast, the set, the orchestra (20 pieces!) were all fantastic. D.B. Bonds more than made me swoon as Joe ("She read DeMille's horoscope; she read mine..." "Did she read the script?"), Florence Lacey was a better Norma than Glenn Close, whom I saw back on Broadway in 1995. The only casting issue I might have would be that Bonds and Susan Derry, who plays Betty Schaefer, appear too close in age, making his treatment of her seem somewhat odd ("You remind me of me long ago..." "Stop it, you're making me feel old"). (For reference, in the film, William Holden was 32 at time of release; Nancy Olson was 22. And you could see it.)
Bonds, by and large, is a fantastic Joe. The two scenes I mentioned were fabulous; it was subtle, but you can see him make a decision and go for it...and then see his ambivalence about what he's done. For each show I see, I usually have a few moments burned into my memory, and those are it for this show.
I put Norma in the same category as Fantine in Les Mis (though, again, I will admit that it is a complicated role that Lacey pulls off very well!)--necessary, but not particularly interesting to me.
Of course, there are others who feel differently. And by "others," I mean "most people" because God knows the reviews of this show focus on her and are all, "And yeah, Bonds and Ed Dixon [Max von Mayerling] are good, too."
And then there's the woman I sat next to. When this show closes February 13, she will have seen it eight times. God knows that I shouldn't judge; there are plenty of shows that I want to see over and over--I just don't have the means. (This woman is a volunteer, so she's only paying for four of those tickets.) But this show isn't one of them. I'm going back Saturday to usher, but really, there isn't the emotional core to this show that makes me want to come back time and again. I admit that I really wanted to see it more out of curiosity for how Signature would stage than out of a fondness for the music (though I certainly was obsessed in the day; I own the Broadway and London cast recordings). And, of course, Signature didn't disappoint.
But not one of my favorites. You know what someone around here needs to stage? Evita. Get on it, DC theaters.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Synthesis
I just finished reading Hellhound on His Trail: The Stalking of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the International Hunt for His Assassin. This is how history books should be written. It's always amazing when you read a book in which you know the outcome manages to be a real page-turner. I did not want to put this book down. Sides manages to weave together the stories of Eric Galt (a.k.a. James Earl Ray), Martin Luther King Jr., and the FBI in the days leading up to April 4, 1968 flawlessly. In so many books like this, I usually find myself more interested in one of the stories, but that wasn't the case with this book.
And then I discovered that PBS had done an American Experience on this topic: Roads to Memphis. It's basically the same story, exactly--Sides even pops up. But it was fascinating getting to watch the players in action. Particularly moving was the footage of the speech King gave the night before he died. I'm pretty sure I had heard parts of it before, but in context, it's fascinating.
Today I was at the National Museum of American History and went to see the Kinsey Collection, which relates to African American history, and found myself staring at a sign held by marchers just after King's death. As I was leaving after working in the American Presidency exhibit, the program on the Greensboro sit-ins was going on, so I stopped to watch...and wound up singing "On My Way to Freedomland," which I had just heard in Roads to Memphis. It just all came together, and really has piqued my interest in the civil rights movement.
And then I discovered that PBS had done an American Experience on this topic: Roads to Memphis. It's basically the same story, exactly--Sides even pops up. But it was fascinating getting to watch the players in action. Particularly moving was the footage of the speech King gave the night before he died. I'm pretty sure I had heard parts of it before, but in context, it's fascinating.
Today I was at the National Museum of American History and went to see the Kinsey Collection, which relates to African American history, and found myself staring at a sign held by marchers just after King's death. As I was leaving after working in the American Presidency exhibit, the program on the Greensboro sit-ins was going on, so I stopped to watch...and wound up singing "On My Way to Freedomland," which I had just heard in Roads to Memphis. It just all came together, and really has piqued my interest in the civil rights movement.
Monday, January 24, 2011
On music and history colliding inappropriately
On my way to the Metro on Saturday, as I headed downtown to volunteer at Ford's Theatre, I found myself listening to the Beatles Past Masters - Volume 1. Which is how I found myself standing next to the gun that Booth used to kill Abraham Lincoln, dancing slightly to "I'll Get You." The chorus?
"It's not like me to pretend,
But I'll get you in the end,
Yes I will, I'll get you in the end"
Yeah. Disturbing.
Hey, at least I didn't have the children's song "I'm Gonna Catch You" by the Laurie Berkner Band. Super cute, but they chorus of THAT is:
"I'm gonna catch you, you better run
I'm gonna catch you, here I come"
Cute for my 3-year-old niece. Less so when discussing assassination.
"It's not like me to pretend,
But I'll get you in the end,
Yes I will, I'll get you in the end"
Yeah. Disturbing.
Hey, at least I didn't have the children's song "I'm Gonna Catch You" by the Laurie Berkner Band. Super cute, but they chorus of THAT is:
"I'm gonna catch you, you better run
I'm gonna catch you, here I come"
Cute for my 3-year-old niece. Less so when discussing assassination.
Monday, January 17, 2011
It's called acting, Nick. Look it up.
I was conflicted when I heard that Nick Jonas not only was portraying Marius in Les Mis, but that he'd be part of the 25th anniversary concert. I justified that it wasn't really stunt casting because he had played Gavroche when he was little; plus, he's clearly the talented Jonas Brother (at least, he's the one who writes their music; plus he plays drums AND guitar!) (and probably piano?). (Though it isn't like Les Mis hasn't resorted to stunt casting in the past but LA LA LA I can't hear you.)
Anyway, someone linked to a clip of his performance in a discussion of the British series I'd Do Anything, which followed the search for a Nancy in the West End production of Oliver! Apparently, one of the runners-up not only ALSO was in that concert (Eponine), but she and Nick are an item.
ANYWAY. So I heard the clip a bit and was actually impressed. He didn't sound bad at all! So that's good. And then I watched the clip. And dude did NOT impress me with his acting. He seemed very...samey. His character in JONAS was very dry, and maybe that's just his personality, because watching that clip, I just saw Nick Jonas. Not Marius. I mean, he's obviously trying to act. It just looks odd (his entrance is at about 3:00).
And then, of course, is the originator of the role, My Boyfriend Michael Ball. Here he is in the 10th anniversary concert, when he's both too old and too puffy for the part. But because he has actual theatrical training, he is Marius (entrance around 2:00). Just because you can sing a role doesn't mean that you're necessarily acting it.
(Need to keep going? "A Heart Full of Love" is here.)
Anyway, someone linked to a clip of his performance in a discussion of the British series I'd Do Anything, which followed the search for a Nancy in the West End production of Oliver! Apparently, one of the runners-up not only ALSO was in that concert (Eponine), but she and Nick are an item.
ANYWAY. So I heard the clip a bit and was actually impressed. He didn't sound bad at all! So that's good. And then I watched the clip. And dude did NOT impress me with his acting. He seemed very...samey. His character in JONAS was very dry, and maybe that's just his personality, because watching that clip, I just saw Nick Jonas. Not Marius. I mean, he's obviously trying to act. It just looks odd (his entrance is at about 3:00).
And then, of course, is the originator of the role, My Boyfriend Michael Ball. Here he is in the 10th anniversary concert, when he's both too old and too puffy for the part. But because he has actual theatrical training, he is Marius (entrance around 2:00). Just because you can sing a role doesn't mean that you're necessarily acting it.
(Need to keep going? "A Heart Full of Love" is here.)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
To make an impossible choice
New York Magazine is doing countdowns this week--greatest NY athlete, greatest NY tv show, etc. The one that interested me, of course, was greatest musical. Nora Ephron, Frank Rich, Jonathan Tunick, and George C. Wolfe debated the greatest American musical--I assume on Broadway, not off, but I'm not 100% clear. Anyway, that means no imports.
It's a fascinating discussion, and makes me want to see She Loves Me, which I am not even a little familiar with. I also now feel bad that I really don't know Porgy and Bess. I will, however, say that having seen Showboat somewhat recently, that its book is just not good and therefore should not be the greatest musical. I will accept the argument for it being the first. And I also totally agree with the uncomfortableness with Carousel due to the whole "Abuse is OK!" theme.
Also, having just read Broadway Musicals: The Biggest Hit & Biggest Flop of the Season, 1959-2009 (which was a fascinating read, by the way; I definitely recommend it if you're a fan of musicals), it's lovely to have Sondheim mentioned so much. Oh, Sondheim. All of his are my favorite.
Anyway, it boils down to this quote--why I love theater:
Wolfe: Wait, I’m confused because if you isolate the elements it’s not a musical. A musical is what happens when text collides with motion collides with song collides with spectacle. And spectacle can be the human heart; it doesn’t necessarily have to be a helicopter crashing. You can go see ballet in its purity; you can go to a recital to hear music by itself. But what the American musical does so thrillingly is bastardize these forms into something that is exhilarating and compelling and deeply moving.
It's a fascinating discussion, and makes me want to see She Loves Me, which I am not even a little familiar with. I also now feel bad that I really don't know Porgy and Bess. I will, however, say that having seen Showboat somewhat recently, that its book is just not good and therefore should not be the greatest musical. I will accept the argument for it being the first. And I also totally agree with the uncomfortableness with Carousel due to the whole "Abuse is OK!" theme.
Also, having just read Broadway Musicals: The Biggest Hit & Biggest Flop of the Season, 1959-2009 (which was a fascinating read, by the way; I definitely recommend it if you're a fan of musicals), it's lovely to have Sondheim mentioned so much. Oh, Sondheim. All of his are my favorite.
Anyway, it boils down to this quote--why I love theater:
Wolfe: Wait, I’m confused because if you isolate the elements it’s not a musical. A musical is what happens when text collides with motion collides with song collides with spectacle. And spectacle can be the human heart; it doesn’t necessarily have to be a helicopter crashing. You can go see ballet in its purity; you can go to a recital to hear music by itself. But what the American musical does so thrillingly is bastardize these forms into something that is exhilarating and compelling and deeply moving.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Comedy requires tragedy
I've written before about how much I like How I Met Your Mother because I can relate to it. For a group of characters who are supposed to be my age (fairly exactly--I graduated college the same year Marshall, Lily, and Ted did), they seem about dead on. Sure, I don't spend nearly that much time in a bar, but they're people I relate to.
SPOILER ALERT
There's some debate about the ending of last night's episode--the sudden death of Marshall's father. One reaction that I just don't understand is that people don't want to watch the show for tears and didn't like the unexpected ending and "I don't want to see a sitcom do that" or "I watch this to get away from real life." There are certainly shows that I can see for that, but HIMYM has always been more to me.
To me, it's an amusing look at people growing up. You see them deal with their careers and relationships that involve hard choices (the Ted/Robin "I love this person, but we ultimately want different things") and parental issues (Lily, Barney). The situations can be comical, but there's a layer of realism that's very much there.
For the past couple of seasons, it seems like the show has drifted. It's still been enjoyable, but the characters have become too sitcommy. A show that had real people became one with cartoonish characters. This season has been a return to form, and it peaked with this moment. Of course, where they go from here is an issue, but I have faith in these writers.
The other major complaint I see is about the countdown. Honestly, I didn't even NOTICE the numbers until a friend on Twitter mentioned them. Then, thinking about the episode, I remembered some numbers sticking out. I've seen people being all, "It so SO OBVIOUS and DISTRACTING!" But...no. I mean, yes, some people noticed from the beginning, but it was subtle enough that a lot of people didn't. Inappropriate? I didn't think so. Co-creator Carter Bays said that it was done to create some foreboding in the episode. Because really, you never do know when those big moments are going to happen (as Whistler said on Buffy so many years ago). A countdown in life like that might be nice.
Anyway, it's nice to know that the cast of the show also appreciates it. Also, Josh Radnor needs to marry me.
SPOILER ALERT
There's some debate about the ending of last night's episode--the sudden death of Marshall's father. One reaction that I just don't understand is that people don't want to watch the show for tears and didn't like the unexpected ending and "I don't want to see a sitcom do that" or "I watch this to get away from real life." There are certainly shows that I can see for that, but HIMYM has always been more to me.
To me, it's an amusing look at people growing up. You see them deal with their careers and relationships that involve hard choices (the Ted/Robin "I love this person, but we ultimately want different things") and parental issues (Lily, Barney). The situations can be comical, but there's a layer of realism that's very much there.
For the past couple of seasons, it seems like the show has drifted. It's still been enjoyable, but the characters have become too sitcommy. A show that had real people became one with cartoonish characters. This season has been a return to form, and it peaked with this moment. Of course, where they go from here is an issue, but I have faith in these writers.
The other major complaint I see is about the countdown. Honestly, I didn't even NOTICE the numbers until a friend on Twitter mentioned them. Then, thinking about the episode, I remembered some numbers sticking out. I've seen people being all, "It so SO OBVIOUS and DISTRACTING!" But...no. I mean, yes, some people noticed from the beginning, but it was subtle enough that a lot of people didn't. Inappropriate? I didn't think so. Co-creator Carter Bays said that it was done to create some foreboding in the episode. Because really, you never do know when those big moments are going to happen (as Whistler said on Buffy so many years ago). A countdown in life like that might be nice.
Anyway, it's nice to know that the cast of the show also appreciates it. Also, Josh Radnor needs to marry me.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Counting the days
Oh my G, people. When I was little, I had a Sesame Street Christmas album (on tape) that I loved. I adored this thing. I only had the tape itself, not the case. But I listened to that thing all the frickin' time around the holidays. To the point that yes, my tape died. And then I couldn't find it on CD. And I was heartbroken, because there's nothing people like more than to relive things from their childhood.
And then, oh day of days!, there it was. On Amazon. I LOVE THE INTERNET. I sampled the songs. The track list was right. And, for $8.99, it was mine. And then I scared the cats by clapping excitedly and squealing. I do not care that it's not even Thanksgiving. I AM LISTENING TO THIS BAD BOY RIGHT NOW.
And I have never been happier.
Edit. I am possibly gaining insight into my psyche. During "The 12 Days of Christmas," they go through and make comments on each piece. Grover had "8 maids a milking" and you hear cows and he says, "Aw, cows!" And I? Love cows. And Grover is my favorite. This all makes sense now!
And then, oh day of days!, there it was. On Amazon. I LOVE THE INTERNET. I sampled the songs. The track list was right. And, for $8.99, it was mine. And then I scared the cats by clapping excitedly and squealing. I do not care that it's not even Thanksgiving. I AM LISTENING TO THIS BAD BOY RIGHT NOW.
And I have never been happier.
Edit. I am possibly gaining insight into my psyche. During "The 12 Days of Christmas," they go through and make comments on each piece. Grover had "8 maids a milking" and you hear cows and he says, "Aw, cows!" And I? Love cows. And Grover is my favorite. This all makes sense now!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Behind the times
I consider myself fairly up on pop culture. I do pretty well in general conversation; if someone mentions a book or a movie or an Internet meme or celebrity scandal, I usually have heard of it and am familiar with the general situation/plot/whatever.
I run into problems with music, though. I don't think I've been really up on music since I was in elementary school (and buying Madonna's True Blue on record). I frequently have heard of a song--which, when it comes to a movie or tv show, is good enough. I can cough up actors or the latest evictee from a reality show. But with music? It's harder. I can see people referring to songs, but rarely have I actually heard the song.
For example, watching Glee, a lot of the time, I'm all, "I don't know this song at all," and my friend Dave will be all, "Really???" I heard of Cee Lo Green's "F--k You" AGES ago, but only just heard the song itself a couple of days ago (when I finally watched the video on YouTube) (totally worth it, by the way) (and, OK, I did it because I know it's going to be on Glee next week). Katy Perry's "California Gurls"? Heard of it in, like, June. Heard the song? August or so.
This is the problem with getting so much your pop culture knowledge from the Internet instead of actually experiencing it for myself.
I run into problems with music, though. I don't think I've been really up on music since I was in elementary school (and buying Madonna's True Blue on record). I frequently have heard of a song--which, when it comes to a movie or tv show, is good enough. I can cough up actors or the latest evictee from a reality show. But with music? It's harder. I can see people referring to songs, but rarely have I actually heard the song.
For example, watching Glee, a lot of the time, I'm all, "I don't know this song at all," and my friend Dave will be all, "Really???" I heard of Cee Lo Green's "F--k You" AGES ago, but only just heard the song itself a couple of days ago (when I finally watched the video on YouTube) (totally worth it, by the way) (and, OK, I did it because I know it's going to be on Glee next week). Katy Perry's "California Gurls"? Heard of it in, like, June. Heard the song? August or so.
This is the problem with getting so much your pop culture knowledge from the Internet instead of actually experiencing it for myself.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Chamber of Awesome, maybe
I revealed myself as a total geek to some coworkers today. Most realize that I'm a total geek, but these were coworkers I didn't know very well. The topic? Harry Potter. I could not be more excited about the new movies if I tried. I make little squeaking noises every time I see a new trailer (like here).
It's amazing how well those stories hold together. I caught most of Chamber of Secrets on tv this weekend and it really drove home how important that book is in the overall story. I remember the first few times I read it, I wasn't blown away. I enjoyed it, sure, but thought it was basically just a rehash of Sorcerer's Stone. Entertaining enough, but I wasn't bowled over.
But then the saga continued. And the elements of CoS started to resonate throughout the other books. The house elves. The history of Voldemort. So good. The more I read the books, the more I watch the story, the more I'm impressed by what Rowling did.
Anyway...just a few weeks left! Yay!
It's amazing how well those stories hold together. I caught most of Chamber of Secrets on tv this weekend and it really drove home how important that book is in the overall story. I remember the first few times I read it, I wasn't blown away. I enjoyed it, sure, but thought it was basically just a rehash of Sorcerer's Stone. Entertaining enough, but I wasn't bowled over.
But then the saga continued. And the elements of CoS started to resonate throughout the other books. The house elves. The history of Voldemort. So good. The more I read the books, the more I watch the story, the more I'm impressed by what Rowling did.
Anyway...just a few weeks left! Yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)